2022 Ohio 2294
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- On October 6, 2019, Michelle Szozda consumed alcohol and cocaine at a bridal shower, drove to purchase more cocaine, and on the return trip turned into the path of an oncoming vehicle, causing a high‑impact collision that killed the other driver; his 22‑month‑old daughter was uninjured.
- Szozda falsely told officers she had not consumed alcohol; blood testing later showed a .13 BAC and cocaine metabolites; victim had no intoxicants.
- Indicted on two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, Szozda pleaded no contest to one second‑degree count in exchange for dismissal of the other; a presentence investigation was ordered.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed an indefinite prison term of six to nine years (within the statutory range); defense urged minimum, victim’s family sought maximum; court declined to adopt the maximum.
- On appeal Szozda argued the sentence was contrary to law, challenging the limits on appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) as interpreted in State v. Jones and raising due process and equal protection claims; she also challenged a clerical error in the sentencing entry labeling the conviction an "offense of violence."
- The Sixth District affirmed the sentence, rejected the constitutional challenges, and remanded only to correct the sentencing entry by deleting the incorrect "offense of violence" finding via a nunc pro tunc entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is "contrary to law" under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) given Jones limits on appellate review of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 | Szozda: Jones extinguishes meaningful appellate review of trial courts' weighing of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and thus her sentence is not adequately reviewable. | State: Court is bound by Jones/Toles and stare decisis; Jones precludes reweighing those factors on appeal under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). | Affirmed: Under Jones/Toles, appellate courts may not reweigh R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; sentence not contrary to law. |
| Whether R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) as interpreted violates due process by denying "meaningful" appellate review | Szozda: Denial of review of 2929.11/2929.12 violations deprives her of meaningful appellate review and due process. | State: Other appellate/constitutional avenues exist; Jones is narrow; statute passes rational‑basis review. | Denied: Court finds no due process violation; other routes for review remain and statute is rationally related to legitimate interests. |
| Whether R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) violates equal protection as an irrational classification | Szozda: Excluding R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 from (G)(2)(a) creates an irrational class with less review. | State: Legislature may set review scope; rational‑basis applies; statute survives. | Denied: Classification rationally related to legitimate state interests; equal protection not violated. |
| Whether the sentencing entry error (labeling the offense an "offense of violence") requires resentencing before a different judge | Szozda: The entry contains an incorrect legal designation that affects rights/labeling. | State: Concedes the designation was erroneous and can be corrected by nunc pro tunc entry. | Remanded: Judgment affirmed; remand ordered for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry deleting the offense‑of‑violence finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 169 N.E.3d 242 (Ohio 2020) (held appellate courts may not independently reweigh R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)).
- State v. Patrick, 172 N.E.3d 952 (Ohio 2020) (R.C. 2953.08 is not the only basis for appellate or constitutional review of a sentence).
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (trial courts have discretion to impose any prison sentence within the statutory range).
- State v. Mole, 74 N.E.3d 368 (Ohio 2016) (example of an equal‑protection challenge to a statutory classification).
- Westfield v. Galatis, 797 N.E.2d 1256 (Ohio 2003) (discusses stare decisis and the Supreme Court’s authority to revisit precedent).
- Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956) (if a state provides appellate review, procedures must satisfy due process and equal protection).
- McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684 (1894) (no constitutional right to an appeal).